OCinBuffalo

However any of us feel personally, the cheating angle will never be played out until: Brady and Belechick retire, or, they win another SB. That's all there is to it. The "no SBs since they cheated" is always going to be a legitimate position, until one of the 2 happens. You want to say: The "league punished them"(so this should be over)? No, the opposite: the NFL punished them, which acknowledges their guilt, but then? The NFL went into 100% damage control mode. While that is good for the NFL....it's always going to suck for Brady/Belechick. That's because, we never got to the bottom of exactly who did what. That uncertainty legitimizes the "no SBs since they cheated" position, and it always will.

Cuomo is a perfect example of a liberal who thinks he's smarter than he actually is, and therefore, does/says things that he thinks are going to be politically effective, largely because: it's his idea. His objectve? He wants to paint himself as a "far left" Democrat. Why? Because he's been governing as a Republican, or better: he's been governing like a Clinton. You know the drill. Unfortunately for Cuomo, he can't seem to run the Clinton gameplan we all know so well, and this entire thing is much worse than Cuomo suspected, and has now gotten away from him. Now, he is walking it back, which is the opposite of what you want. The hilarious part: apparently, he thinks he's the only one who is aware of the Clinton gameplan. Like I said: he thinks he's smarter than he is.

Look, I get it, but, really? Once "the changes" are made, sooner or later...somebody is going to be assigned the actual job of building "the system". That somebody isn't going to tell a soul how they did it, unless they want to go to Federal "pound me in the ass" prison. And, they will only build part of it, or, they will build a "system" that isn't really the system. They will build something that, once delivered, gets hacked to pieces and re-engineered into something else(what we suspected happened to our work, when I did my Navy job, because most of their requirements/interfaces made no sense at all, but that was the spec...). The users of "the system", aren't even likely to tell each other how they use it, never mind an outsider. This is basic compartmentalization. Thus, nobody is going to know the whole story, except a very few, and they have 0 reason to tell anybody anything. And, if they are compelled they can invoke national security, and "sources and methods" which is legally protected. They don't have to tell you, or Congress anything, by law, unless Congress/a court can produce somebody that has been "aggrieved". Nobody knows when they've been aggrieved by a secret system that tracks them, unless "the system" sucks balls, so...this goes nowhere. So...again, I ask: what's changing? And, even if there is something changing, who is actually going to know about it?

Bah. What is this doing here? Throwing him to the dogs? It's not like he's going to stick around and defend any of this, so what is the point? "The dogs" like meat, and we aren't going to get any from this. I mean....at least if he said something about Sarah Palin, then I could see it. Well, we could screw around with some of the comments made thus far, if that's what moving this here is, fine: Yeah, let's whine about Amherst! Let's kill the off all the economic growth we find, everywhere we find it, and never comprehend the relationship between lowering taxes and growth! Because? We are massive idiots! Let's keep taxes as high as we can in NYS, and tell anybody that wants to cut them: that they are stealing from the public sector unions! Let's keep benefits as high as we can...so that we import the poor from the rest of the country, but never realize that's why we keep seeing higher demand for state services, every year, which means we need bigger budgets and more public sector workers, to deliver these services! Which means? We ALWAYS need to keep taxes high! You unmitigated, circular reasoning, Sheldon Silver-loving morons! :wallbash: New York State's #1 import? The poor. The sick. The elderly....none of whom have ever "paid their fair share" in NYS taxes. This is the "race to the bottom": of idiocy. Who can be the biggest idiot, and not realize that we are being played as suckers by the rest of the country? That's right: NY people, being played as suckers, by people from Alabama. Can you even imagine that? It's real: I just met them. They are here because? Services are better here. They have no intention of paying into the system. The wife's condition says: they never will. But, now? They are NYS's problem, and not Alabama's Why? Unmitigated morons, who think Amherst, and not they themselves, are the problem. ...but, that's not why this is here, and, I don't feel right about going after somebody who posted in a thread they thought was on the football board. That's like making a play, and letting your momentum carry you into wiping out the training staff, on purpose/just for the hell of it. I only want to play PPP against posters who've stepped onto the field.

As far as what's changing? Does anybody think we are going to broadcast our tactics/capabilities to the media(and therefore, the enemy), whatever they end up being?

Yeah. Ask Martin Basheer how funny that joke is. If she's a joke, then why can't you, and far too many others, not stop talking about her? Will you now do the same thing with Christie? That would be fascinating. I put the Palin thing in there on purpose ....to demonstrate this point. Palin was merely an example, but you took the bait. (No, Azalin doesn't count, because he was talking tactics, not Palin.) This is derangement: especially when I specifically outline the problem "attacking Palin unfairly gives her power", and then you repeat the behavior, despite the warning. What is that? What tells us that the same behavior that is exhibited toward Palin, won't be directed at Christie, with the same results....even though people like me are wisely telling you to: just stop. But, I don't see you stopping yourselves, because not only do you lack intellectual honesty, you lack basic honesty, and have: ever since the Clinton/Lewinsky thing. You've accepted lying, as "normal and OK". Real lying. Not "I made a bad choice based on WMD intelligence" Bush "lying". No. Real lying. Today: You've been burned by this same thing, over and over. There's not a single leftist in the media(um, Katie Couric comes to mind. What's she doing now?) that hasn't taken a serious beating as a result of bad behavior directed toward Sarah Palin. The worst actors have gotten 3x the beating they tried to give Palin. Yet, you are still at it? This self-destructive behavior, is predicated on yet another lie = "all women conservatives are traitors or stupid". Apparently your need to protect/live the lie, outweighs your need to not look like an abject fool. Thus, you end up looking like abject fools quite often. Now do you see why I say: you've accepted lying? I could be wrong...and there's a long way to go with this, but, I think that's the root cause here. Flat out lying has been "OK" ever since Clinton/Lewinsky for you. We see Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, Fast and Furious, and of course Obamacare: the lies just keep on coming, and your need to protect them, keeps on making you look foolish. Fascinating.

What's that? You say Accenture gave the media something? Hmmm....it seems somebody said: Moving on...also from B-man's link: Oh really? Yes, when it comes to projects like these only the REAL elite will do. Accenture has a good chance to get this done, because they actually KNOW how to do this work. But, just remember, "elite" also means: No way that Accenture fails here, even if they don't meet the deadline, there's no way they fail. The leaking to the media, and various other tactics(I could write the deliverables myself, right now), will see to that. Hmmm somebody said: Moving on from that(how hilarious is this?)....the next thing from B-man's link: But...but....but...I thought this thing was "done", and that the 834 transactions(which I have specifically referred to multiple times) were all taken care of....because Apple, Google, and various other Valley resources had been secretly engaged to come in and make it all better. Chef and 4mer: it's over. In fact, somebody said: Well, here we are in January, and, the "website"(which never was a website) is not done. Not even close. This whole thing is hanging by a thread. But, politically, it doesn't matter, not even a little bit. Whether the financial system isn't built(which would be a surprise, since this is Accenture's core competency), or is, Accenture will pull what they have pulled every single time I've worked with them. No matter what: the Administration, and Democrats by proxy(seen to by the Rs), are going to get the shaft here, because Accenture will make sure that everyone knows who screwed up, why, when, and how, from 2009 until today. They will release everything they can get their hands on, NDA or no. They aren't going to leave it to chance. They will line up the reasons for WHY the financial system is not built by March, and the media will have them...by the end of February at the latest. Clearly that effort has already begun. This way, if it is ready? They can demand tons of money, and remind(brag) to all their other clients/future clients, that they got the job done despite overwhelming odds against. And, if it isn't? They will have built in their reasons(excuses) for why. The leaders of this project are looking at being set for life if they can pull this off, but, they aren't going to let themselves get fired if they don't. This is called: competence, in my business. It's as simple as that. And this? At risk? (I know what you mean, but the phrasing is useful) There is no risk here for Accenture: they are going to see to that. How do I know this? Because I've lived it, literally. None of this is "predictions". This is: I know what's going to happen, because I know WHY it has to happen.

Well, here's another thing you run into when you do analytics. Rather than the guy who is looking to prove...here we have the guy who is looking to disprove, and if he can't find his answer, or if anything contradicts him, then everything you're doing is wrong, automagically. I say(and Todd says) again: there's little-no chance that the analytics systems is even up and running, PROPERLY, at this point. Therefore, there's also little-no chance that analytics was used in the decision-making to retain Crossman. But(here's what I don't get to say to clients, so this is fun) by all means, go ahead and rant away, while you're at it: run down the block and throw ALL the babies out with their bathwater. When you're done? Crossman will still be the ST coach. Now what?

PM sent. One of these days, you guys are going to realize that what I do at PPP, isn't what I do everywhere else. Well...mostly. Excuse me, I believe this, , is yours. Also, one of these days: you will realize that the entire emoticon issue is a troll, especially because...I'm telling you it is. A troll, of a poster who is here all the time, who demanded that I insert a certain amount of emoticons per # of words...so that they could "get" my sarcasm. This was after my second post ever. More emoticons: were demanded. I have merely: responded. All it takes: for said poster to acknowledge their status as "he who has unleashed the upon us" and the emoticons will go away. Until then? All of this, is up to me, and not you. So? Live with it. Feel the s flying around you. Feel them tracking you, hunting you , waiting until you sleep . See them in your dreams! See them replace your kid's faces(which for some kids, is an improvement)! There will be no end to the s ! A sea of washing over you, you're drowning in .... Unless...the poster who has woven this spell...dispels it. Now, it's very likely they know all about this, yet, they do nothing. So, who is the real cause of your suffering?

Yes. All true. And, I'm pretty sure we all knew this, but you directed this to me. I assure you I knew this. I didn't just point out that Buddy followed it. I clearly linked multipled sources that show practically every recent draft trade has followed it. I also accounted for the outliers = Raiders and Skins. No. Enough of the myth. The chart is the chart, and however it may be modified, it's continued use is plain as day. The people who argue against the chart's use....seem to be the same people who say the RG3 trade was a good idea. As if attacking the chart is going to help in some way. No it just compounds the FAIL, especially when, year in and year out almost all draft trades conform to it. RG3 trade fans: the chart isn't your problem....thinking the Redskins know what they are doing in football, after the last 10 years of wild failure? That's your problem. EDIT: And, before you say "well, the Bills...." remember one thing: The Bills aren't a major market team with unlimited resources and an owner who thinks "throw $ at it" = solving problems. You can't have it both ways, either "Ralph is Cheap"TM or, he isn't. If he is, then comparing the last 10 years of the Redskins with the Bills also = FAIL.

On the flip side of this: trading down is what has destroyed the once-vaunted Patriots Defense, and turned them into a standard AFC, offense-only team. If you never put any first rounders on your team....for years, you're eventually going to hit a talent wall. They have. Perhaps the nicest part of the last game? We drove the ball down the field on them, at will, for 70+ yards, 3 times in a row in the 4th quarter, without our starting QB or #1 WR. Next year is looking just fine for me due to that. Trading down, and not hitting on your extra picks, is the worst of both worlds, and that's precisely what the Patriots have done in the draft, drafting D, on the whole, for the last 7 years prior to last year. Last year, they traded up. And, they got some keepers as a result. However, I think the Dallas guy I referred to above is on to something = high picks value vs. PFF performance aren't necessarily all they are cracked up to be. I wonder if there's a character element to this, since a high pick has typically been coddled in college for the last 3 years at least, if not, for their entire lives? In all cases, I think the #1 driving aspect for trading up/down is: quality of the draft overall. How many 1st rounders are actual 1st rounders, 2nds, 2nds, etc.? How big is the real top tier, and how big is the 2nd teir...and at what point do you enter Just a bunch of Guys?

See, this is the problem. I'm not the one proposing the change, therefore, it's not on me to do the research, and planning, and account for the unintended consequences. That's the job of those people who formulate the plan. This is about laziness. Lazy = unwilling to do all the work/testing necessary to think through what is gained/lost by making the change. You're essentially saying "we have to do it, so we can find out what's in...the results, that we get" . Again, we, as a nation, are all currently experiencing the effects of that lazy behavior, and an example is right under....your nose. Personal experience reality you can't seem to handle: I do change for a living. It's the only thing I've ever done. Incremental change is always superior. I'll throw you a bone: why not change the goalposts for some pre-season games? Then, measure the effect? See if there's any change in the so-called "problematic" behavior you are "solving", and also, see what happens that you didn't expect? If nothing else? It gives the pre-season games a slightly increased appeal....because you don't know what's going to happen, and nobody else does either. If all goes well, or if all goes poorly, you've had a working prototype actually get exposed to the real world, and now? You do know something.

But...the bullying is what makes this fun, and not boring! Why wouldn't we want to bully? Who would want to wear an on-fire suit? That's my other question.

That's the other side of the coin...that I don't think very many in the liberal media have considered. The more they attack, the more inadvertent power they give him. It's exactly like the Sarah Palin phenomenon. The more the left attacks her, the more damage they do to themselves(ask Martin Basheer how his last Sarah Palin attack worked out for him), and the more power she attains. You would think they would have learned from that. Nope. If he truly had nothing to do with this? He emerges much stronger....and....with direct contrast that he can draw between his leadership, and Hillary's. There will be no way for the liberal media to ignore it, because they are the ones who created it. They may be creating a weapon that delivers the death blow for them in 2016. Of course, not thinking things through properly, is how we have Obamacare....so this isn't much of a surprise. Look at this thread: in the numerous responses here....the concrete of this contrast between courageous leadership, and mincy weakness, has already been poured. I doubt this is the only place where this same concrete is being poured. When it dries? That's it. Along with Obamacare, you've now got the biggest of big picture issues...settled in the minds of most thinking people, and settled decisively against Hillary, or whomever the D candidate will be. The more time passes, the more unwise this approach appears to be for the Democratic party.

Historically, central planning has always screwed the poor the most. Those closest to starvation, disease, etc. the most vulnerable, are always the people who take the brunt of the central plan FAIL. You look at China, and how much forced starvation occurred during the Great Leap Forward. Millions died for no good reason, other than: proving to the rest of the world that central planning is for morons. The only question is: will you let their deaths be in vain? Will you continue support of central planning, even though we have gallons of historical evidence that it sucks, different flavors of its FAIL too, like Nixon Wage and Price Controls FAIL, and the 90% of the New Deal FAIL(most people don't even realize how big a failure the New Deal actually was) and NOTHING that shows any real success. When you compare the sucess of markets vs. central planning, OBJECTIVELY, every rational human being comes away saying there is no comparison, markets are superior. So the other queston? Are you are rational human being, or not? As I understand it, not only are most of them against Obamacare, they are also not signing up. Once again, we've bought an entire car...so that we could use the cigarette ligther and the radio. We sorta agree, but taking TPA out of the mix is patently retarded. You should know better. The entire point of TPA? Efficiency and cutting cost. Why do we want to cut out the thing that saves $? TPAs compete with each other. You want to get rid of the competition? How does that cut cost? Taking TPA away means forcing either the insurer or the insured to hire somebody. Joe's Garage does car repair, not health insurance management, and the # of people on his staff mean hiring somebody to manage a 10 person plan, is never going to be an efficient use of Joe's resources. All you're doing by getting rid of TPAs is creating a costly and inefficient bottleneck in the policy management/claims business process. Either the government is the bottleneck, or the insurers, or the insured. Take your pick. This solves nothing. I want HSAs, same as you, for the same reasons. But, I want those HSAs managed by the 401k people. They already have all the resources, and the experience of doing this type of thing. HSA = the fastest way to create wealth. You don't need to try to buy a house or a big job that has 401k. All you need is pre-tax income. And, you can pass on your HSA to your beneficiary(ies), no taxes. Boom, wealth creation. However, I want Walmat, Target, etc., to be a TPA for all catastrophic policies, and I want those policies sold across state lines. Walmart handles massive amounts of money, and they arleady have the resources in place to handle more. They can scale. You start talking catastrophic pools that have 1 million people in them? That "bends the cost curve" down, big time. It's not phony state exchanges == wealth redistribution. It's smacking the hell out of cost, and pre-existing conditions? Spread across a pool of 1 million? Too many? How about 200k? Either way, nobody cares. Walmart does what they always do: Buy health insurance policies for highway robbery prices, and re-sell them. Somebody is going to find a way to meet their price, especially if we are talking nationally. Hell if Walmart makes you squeamish? Then run a catastrophic public option alongside, and see who wins. That is how you control cost, in both the day to day and catastrophic. You let the big guys fight it out for the one-size-fits-all catastrophic, because one-size-fits-all is what large companies/Federal government, is good at. Then, you let the doctors and patients and hospitals, and all the custom needs and issues, resolve itself in the local market....backed up by the county, and local employers, who can pay into HSAs however they want. This is the superior approach, until I hear a better one.

Based on a fairly decent look around the web, TV, youtube etc.....it seems that the general take is: security hawks were generally OK with it, while the liberty folks generally despised it. However, here's the other thing: the leftist "anti"-war crowd really hated it. I mean, the same usually suspects who are always so sagacious about war in general(while never having served in the military, and never having been anywhere near a war), really feel like they have been betrayed. I think this is hilarious. Here's why: if this was 5 years ago, Senator Obama would have been saying the same things about the NSA, he, and he rest of the left, especially the wingnuts here, have always been saying....had he lost, and McCain won. You know the script, so it's not worth mentioning. But here's the reality: President Obama, whether he likes it or not, has had to spend at least an hour a day, if not more, dealing with the world...as it truly is, in a military context. Consider that for a second. What's the difference between the left, and Obama right now? He must sit and listen to the intelligence reports, and military assessments. The average liberal chatterer spends 0 time on this. I wonder....is the reality Obama has had to face every day...not a prescription for a disease? The biggest tone thing I took away from the reactions yesterday? Obama has lost his base on this NSA thing, almost completely. They may be talking him through this, but they are doing so through clenched teeth. Obama has had to live through reality...they remain...in delusion. So, is it any wonder that he's "changed" according to them? I mean technically you could make the same case for what would happen if Rand Paul was suddenly POTUS. Perhaps you'd see the same thing?

Jesus Christ on a crutch! I'm not making any claims here! It is upon them/you to defend their claims. If they/you can't, or can only do so with 2 of the most hilarious things I have ever heard? Then it's time to pack it up, just like Al Gore has. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/the_global_warming_tipping_point_is_near.html Tipping point indeed! It's coming soon. You can bet that in less 18 months, this whole thing dies...for serious people. The unserious are now defending the entire AGW theory....not with the empirical evidence that should have resulted from their own modeling. No. We all KNOW that's a lost cause. Your "water stores more energy than air"....defense? I already laughed that off. Reality: the EMPIRICAL DATA has now blown up, if not seriously threatened, the entire AGW theory, especially when one considers that MORE CO2 has entered the atmosphere than they expected(or, for some models we are at the upper limit of expectation)...so now we have 2 save-ass speculations. That's the amazing part here: 2 speculations are the only thing standing between AGW, and it's total demise. How the hell did we get here....with so much "settled science"? And, I can't help but notice: you've left the "pollution both creates AGW, and prevents it, at the same time" speculation all alone? What's the matter? Don't like that one? Why not? It has about as much chance of being true, as the "bottom of the ocean". And notice something else: I didn't say "ocean temps". I said: "bottom of the ocean". That's because: they said specifically, the "bottom of the ocean". Why haven't you spoken to that? Why does it have to be the bottom of the ocean? Why not stored throughout the ocean in various streams...you know, in a way that might even sorta approach theromodynamic reality, or how we've observed the ocean...to actually behave?

I think this is more about the media covering it's own ass, than it is about the actual teams doing anything. However if one team wants to find out what another is thinking, the media is the only place to look. It's not like teams are going to tell each other. So, it's likely that a team will listen to certain media people, to at least get a report of what some other team ahead of them is going to do, and then see if it makes sense. But, this is exploitable. There's little doubt the Bills have absolutely scorched the media for the last 3 drafts. In fact, I don't know how you do a better job disinforming them. Getting Gilmore and Glenn, in the same draft, is expert skill. And the only way that happens? The media sells the lie. Lying about EJ, having the media lap it up, and then, how fast they turned around and excoriated the Bills for taking him, tells you all you need to know: the media doesn't really do it's own work. Anyone think Todd McShay = the Bills, or any other team's, Scouting Department? No. The media mostly lives off what they get from the teams. People can argue about EJ's play, what they can't argue about? The Bills got exactly what they wanted out of the draft, as they saw it, and the used the media to do it. Again. Who knows what Whaley's going to be like? I doubt Buddy's bald-faced lie approach hasn't rubbed off a little.

First of all let me debunk some myths about the Draft Value Chart, and it being "not used" or "outdated": 1. "not used". Team deny using it, which means: it's definitely used. When a team denies anything about anything...involving the draft...what does that tell you? The denial debunks it. This requires no further evidence. Arguing that the DVC isn't used, is exactly like arguing that Cordy Glenn is a guard. Both bags of silly come from the same place: The disinformed are intentionally made so, by teams lying their asses off. 2. It's "outdated". Perhaps it is. But if you look at how closely teams followed it last year, it's clear they are still using it. Is it going to eventually be revised to reflect the new realities of the NFL CBA? Of course. See here: for more evidence on 1&2: http://min.scout.com/2/1280630.html Still more evidence that the DVC was in full effect for 2012: http://www.bloggingt...-still-relevant Last year the Bills trade value difference with the Rams? 7.6 points. We traded down to 16, and lost 400 DVC points. But we got their 2nd, which netted 440 points. We were +40. Therefore, we swapped 3rds, and lost 35 points. +5. What a coincidence! We needed to give back 40 points, and we gave back 35. We got their 7th = 2.6, so we ended up +7.6 points ahead. The numbers in that last link, and our last trade do not lie. In fact, the deviations from the DVC are so minute, complete with the outlier that proves the case, that anyone who is competent in stats knows this pretty much ends the argument. Just in case you still aren't sure and want to talk about RG3 or how the Raiders were taken for a ride by Miami(DVC-wise)? I will remind you: you are talking about the Redskins, and football decisions. Good Luck! And, the Raiders had to take what they could get: that's their penance for also making bad football decisions for years. Again, the exceptions prove just about everything. Yes, the Redskins and Raiders...and football decisions. So, now that we've dispensed with the nonsense...(no really, tell me some more about how Cordy Glenn is a guard ) Numerous attempts have been made to revise the DVC, and google is your friend for that. I'm not linking them all here. It suffices to say that while we all know that the DVC needs to be/has been changed, hardly anyone knows how. Like the Minnesota guy said: in a few years, somebody will give DVC 2.0 to somebody who prints it, and then? We'll have a new set of denials..... However, fast fowarding to right now: Here's a great take on how the DVC should be looked at: http://www.dallascow...9f-6ddaeb5fcabd Clearly, this sucks for posters who want to trade down. The question is: does anybody else believe in this guy's analysis? Also, looking at his value vs peformance is sorta scary. IF we can actually trade down, and sorta hang around the same places he has the Cowboys hanging around at, this might be another great draft for us. However, speaking of odd football decisions: this Dallas guy better remember the nut case who runs his favorite team. "Trading up into the low double digits" is awfully close to: 9th overall. And, if Manziel or somebody else with draft buzz is hanging around at 9? Don't forget about the 5th year option that you get for drafting a guy at 9, and not 11. Jerra could easily convince himself of his awesomeness, and trade up to get that player.

Easy: you look at the results of one vs. the other. Look at the greatest coaches, but also, look at the greatest generals, politicians, historical figures: all of them? Also the greatest teachers. I would say that teaching accounts for 60-90% of their success. Sure there are big personality types that can lead/get by based purely on charisma and speeches(remind you of anyone?)...but...in the end, the best leaders are leaders first, but also, good teachers. If you know the movie version of Patton, you know that he made a lot of great "gut calls". However, if you actually know, you know that he was an absolute bastard when it came to training, and, he never missed an opportunity to teach/mentor his younger officers. Everybody knows about the yelling and the cussing, few know about the teaching....which is exactly the way Patton wanted it. I would argue that the training allowed Patton to make those gut calls, because it gave him confidence in his men. No different than Belechick going for it, over and over, on 4th down. We all love to hate on him when he fails. But, ask yourself: we admire him for it, don't we? He does it, because he believes he's taught his players well enough that they can win in any situation, and if they believe they can, they will, more often than not. Analytics is great, and very powerful, but so is leadership. When both are done properly? It's a hell of thing to see. Actually most of what appears to be "gut" is merely: rote experience. You've seen the same thing happen over and over, so, your perception is altered to attend to that info, aggregate or minute, which is useful in that situation, and block out everything else, which is just as important. It's no different than a fisherman who knows where the fish are. It may look like "gut" but, actually it's just that he's picking up tiny bits of information, that he might not even be consciously aware of, that create a "feeling" for him. What makes this weird/seemingly supernatural: we don't know what those bits of data are, and the "lucky" fisherman doesn't either. What's really happening: the still undisputed analytics heavy weight of the world, the human brain, can process these pieces of data in real time, far better than computers currently can. However? Diapers/Beer are things that are outside of our rote experience, therefore they are outside of our perception. Therefore, the human brain doesn't know to process them. Once the pattern is recognized, just like when you suddenly see a double jump move in checkers, you wonder how the hell you didn't see it immediately. When you get a "gut" feeling that somebody is a bad dude, it's because you've subconsciously seen something that tells you they are. You get a "bad feeling". But, it's not a feeling at all. It's data. Quantifiable data no less. You just don't realize that you've already processed it, and created your own "analytics" about it.

I hope so. And, would I be too much of a to say: Like any NFL head coach, Marrone has learned to be a good communicator. Thus, he knows he knows Communication Rule #2: Know Your Audience. Perhaps that has something to do with using extremely simplistic examples?

Then, let me answer your question as follows with 2 hypotheticals: Statistics: run Fred to the left-->works 80% of the time. Analytics: runs to the left for RBs of Fred's type(power/slasher) work against this defense, or defenses constructed similarly, with "up to standard" players playing in all 11 spots, or, at least those on "the left" works....80% of time in cold weather, 60% of the time in hot. It works 60% of the time when the Bills are ahead or within 7 points of the other team, while it works 95% of the time when the Bills are down by more than 7 points. But, interestingly: it works 90% of the time when the Bills have thrown 2 or more times on this series, from this part of the field, but only 50% of the time when the Bills have run 1 or more times. Meanwhile, when we look at weather, score, field position and playcalling? We find that in this situation right now: where it's hot, the Bills are ahead in the game, and we've already run once this series, whose first down began on our 37 yard line? It's better to throw it. It's this part, right here, when we start throwing seemingly unrelated data into the mix, that we start to see patterns emerge. The challenge for 1 Bills drive? Stay the F out of the way, and let them emerge. EDIT: Then, all of a sudden....the Offensive Quality control coach, a young guy with little experience, but who can "see" steps up and says "hey, we have to throw a screen pass here, because the other team just substitued their big guys in for short yardage, and, every time a sub is made in this situation, screen passes work 95% of the time in these conditions". Will Hackett/Marrone listen? I dunno. That's a hell of a thing to ask them to do, but, if Ogilvie is right? Well, no. This: http://www.nytimes.c...o-killings.html which uses this: http://christopheviau.com/d3list/ (Example site) Or this: http://mikemcdearmon...lio/300-outings which also uses this: http://d3js.org/ (actual D3 home site, just click on a hex to see cool things!) Or this, my favorite(click anywhere to see why): http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/7607535 + This: http://nodejs.org/ (F Java, F Ruby, F it all: we are talking analytics and in my case, real time, workflow+businesss process/rules-based analytics, so as I said, F the rest) + One/more of these: http://www.mongodb.org/ , http://redis.io/ or even this http://basho.com/riak/ (not recommended yet, but boy this one is going to good) = The cutting edge of analytics. Marrone and company may not be there, but now? You are. Check this crazy thing out: http://bost.ocks.org/mike/uberdata/. Once you get the hang of it, it's cool, but, I would never put that in front of a user. Nice. Want some unsolicited core competency advice?

Boy you can say that again: In college? Operations Research/Management(2 classes). In my rookie Big 6 days? Data Warehousing. In my Valley time? Business Intelligence. For the last few years: Analytics. We'll see if Big Data supplants Analytics...but yeah, it's all just marketing terms, with the only real change being: how many processors you can chain together. The other thing that doesn't change? Look at the end of this post. Everything can be quantified. There's an illusion in this world that "my job is different, becasue it all depends on my decisions/knowledge, and I'm so good/what I do is so different, that"....horsecrap. Yep, the diapers/beer thing is what I've chosen to use...because it has a sort of humanizing effect, and people can relate to it. Yes, Moneyball is interesting, but, there's been a huge debate going on for years about the specific methods there, and whether those methods are riddled with confidence bias. I've devoted very little time to it, but it seems there are good arguments on both sides. It depends, as it always does: on not only your defnition of useful, but the client's. In this case, what if I can in fact quantify something, but few others can understand/relate to it? Even though my work is excellent: it doesn't matter. Ah, a kindred spirit. As I said above, most people think their jobs are special. Answer: nope. Most people therefore think what they do is specialized and custom to them, yet, if you ask them what makes it good, they immediately talk about "industry standards", and how good they are at meeting them It's cognitive dissonance: something can't be specialized/customized, and standard, at the same time. (Well, if you understood what we did at my firm, you'd understand how we preserve this...illusion? delusion? but whatever) Why should we expect football to be any different, or the delusions to be anything but worse? When a coach talks about "their way"...but then says the, apparently magic, words "get off the ball!"...we have our conundrum. How can we all talk about "getting off the ball", yet at the same time make any claim to specialized coaching instruction? Evaluation? If we all agree what "getting off the ball" looks like, then how can we claim to evaluate it...differently? Thus, this becomes a question of competence: you either coach/evaulate properly, each time you do it, or you don't. True/False is very easy to quantify. No. The fact is, as PFF has shown, all it takes is: proper, consistent measurement techniques. Say what you want about "not knowing the play", that argument fails when PFF evaluates every player, on every play, using an objective and standard evaluation instrument. The large # of plays ensures that not knowing the play: barely matters. And, even if it does? The standardization means: we always fail in the same way. Thus, when comparing results one player to another? Any failure is consistent, and therefore: irrelevant. Next: be careful about being truthful abot your life experiences. Apparently there are insecure people patrolling the board, and they can't handle it. Six Sigma is interesting. Of all of the methodologies in management consulting, this one has the best chance to actually stand the test of time. We'll see. I start fires for cookouts with most of the other business books I read...never run out of kindling. We'll see... The biggest problem I see? The same problem I've seen everywhere else = you can deliver wonderful intelligence, but, if the client can't understand it/make use of/is convinced by it in the proper time frame? It doesn't matter. This is not to call other peole stupid. (Well, it is to call some people... ). The problems we've found in this field are pretty consistent: only the top 20% of client staff has the grey matter to actually use these systems effectively. This is especially true when we add the time dimension: as in, here's the answer, now, how long until s/he realizes it, and can make a decision based on it? If that window of time passes, you've accomplished nothing. Again, it may just be a matter of how you've defined your stuff. It may be as simple as how you've laid out the User Interface. It can be a lot of things. EDIT: Let me be clear, IQ(or EQ, or 7 levels of intelligence...something...rears its head here) cuts both ways: if the analytics consultant isn't able to listent to client, and see HOW to lay it out, you're just as screwed. This isn't an experience thing either. This is purely about IQ, and to a lesser degree, confidence of the manager in his/her abilities, in question. Age has nothing to do with it. Neither does title. For every young ass-kicker I've seen use analytics well, I've seen a young dolt not get past the concept of "over time, not point in time". Same thing with CEOs. I don't see this part changing at all in football. So, analytics will only be useful to some. The real question then, is also always the same: can the organization put aside it's inherent power structure temporarily, such that when those who see the intelligence staring back at them, they are able to act on it? Or, will those with inferior ability, but, a title that says they can: block whatever might be done, because "they just don't see it"?

6 damn pages of this...whateverthehell this is? I wonder what would happen if we devoted our efforts to real problems in the game, like the rules changes to prevent concussions-->increased career-ending leg injuries, and not invented ones? Oh, wait: Did I just accidentally bring up yet another unintended consequence..... .....caused by "experts" trying to "solve problems"? Accidentally? Perhaps we should go to PPP with this? Then? Yes, that's the place that makes unintended consquences disappear.

Fresh out of certificates. But, if you want to buy one... And look at it this way: as long as I'm not oppressing you... Thanks. Not bad for 3 drinks into it. However, after reading it again now? I forgot to explain some stuff.... but that would have made it looooooonger. I sincerely doubt most teams have devoted the resources required to do this properly...yet. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. And, yeah: attempting to Big Bang analytics into being is usually an exercise in misery. You need to do it in stages, which is why the Bills not having a fully functioning analytics department overnight is: good. In contrast: It appears the Jags did exactly what I am talking about: "let's prove that Gabbert isn't that bad", and, threw together a quick universe that never had a chance of being right. Right way: Warehouse any and all data that has even the slightest chance of describing or influencing QB play. Then, start playing around with that data, and see what emerges regarding Gabbert. That should take about 18 months to do right, with a small team. Also: I don't see any reason why the league doesn't create some common Big Data for teams to use. Same reasoning for this as there is for the Combine. There's little point in each team creating their own, because for some of it(I'd guess 40%), ALL teams will need the same exact data.